Dougall v National Bank
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1892 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 20 October 1892 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Low, Lord Young, Lord Rutherfurd Clark, Lord Trayner, Lord Justice-Clerk.
Agent and Principal—Agent's failure to carry out instructions to sell stock on account of competing claim—Reparation.—
A bank was the registered owner of £219,840 ordinary stock of a railway company, of which it held in trust, for A £127,000, for B £44,340, and for C £25,000. On 22d November 1890 the railway company sent a circular to its shareholders intimating an issue of preference stock at par, and stating,—‘In the event of your proposing to avail yourself of the opportunity of subscribing for the stock … you will be good enough to fill up the annexed form of application, and forward it … The directors cannot undertake that the full amount applied for will be allotted, but the allotments will bear a relative proportion to the total amount of the entire subscriptions, except in the case of existing holders of the stock, to whom a preference will be given. The purchase price will be payable not later than 1st December.’
On 25th November the bank wrote to the persons for whom they held the stock, intimating the circular, and asking instructions in regard to applications for new stock. A instructed the bank to apply for £30,000, and B for £10,000 on their respective accounts. C gave no instructions to the bank. The bank applied for £40,000 of stock, stating as they had not heard from all their clients they might send another application.
On 27th November, the applications being greatly in excess of the stock to be issued, the railway company allocated the stock to shareholders who had applied at the rate of 15 per cent on the ordinary stock held by them. They sent to the bank an intimation that they had allocated to it £33,000, being 15 per cent on the whole stock held by it. The bank subsequently requested and obtained separate allotment letters for the portions of stock held for their different clients. On 29th of November the bank telegraphed to C at Inverness,—‘No reply to ours of 25th. Have received an allotment. Wire your instructions at once regarding it.’ On receipt on 1st December C telegraphed to the bank,—‘I agree to take allotments, which please sell at best.’
In consequence of A and B claiming the whole allotment of £33,000, the bank disputed C's claim to a share, and subsequently raised an action of multiplepoinding to have the question determined. After C's claim had been sustained, he raised an action of damages against the bank for the loss he had sustained by the bank not selling his share of the new stock at the time he had given the order.
Held that in the circumstances the bank was justified in the course it had taken, and was not liable in damages.
In November 1890 the National Bank of Scotland held £219,840 of the ordinary stock of the North British Railway Company. To the extent of £127,000 this stock was held for Messrs Lawrie & Ker, Edinburgh, to the extent of £44,340 for Henry Grierson, to the extent of £25,000 for Andrew Dougall, Inverness. The remainder was held in various sums for other customers of the bank.
On 24th November the bank received this circular from the railway company:—‘Edinburgh, 22d November 1890.—The shareholders having taken up but small amount of the recent issue of 4 per cent convertible preference stock 1890, allotted at the price of £120 per cent, I am instructed to inform you that the directors are now prepared to receive applications for the balance unissued at the price of £100 per cent. In the event of your proposing to avail yourself of the opportunity of subscribing for the stock at the reduced issue price, you will be good enough to fill up the annexed form of application, and forward it to the undersigned, when an allotment letter will be sent in exchange. The directors cannot undertake that the full amount applied for will be allotted, but the allotments will bear a relative proportion to the total amount of the entire subscriptions, except in the case of existing holders of the stock, to whom a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application des Gaz SA v Falks Veritas Ltd
...20Mr. Vivian Price, Q.C., for the French Gaz Company acknowledges that the Court has a wide power to allow amendment of pleadings: see Order 20, r. 8. But he says that these amendments would change the character of the case altogether: that they bring in matters since the action was commenc......
-
Senior v Holdsworth, ex parte Independent Television News Ltd
... 11 In the ordinary way a summons to produce documents is issued out of the County Court on the authority of the Registrar, seeOrder 20, r. 8(1). If the documents are in the possession of a limited company, such as I. T. N. Ltd., the subpoena is to be served on the company itself, requiring......
-
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd
...had not occurred, the court would permit a party who had mistakenly disclosed a privileged document to amend its List of Documents, under O 20 r 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (UK) 31. In fact, the terms of that rule did not restrict the making of any order to such a time. The res......
-
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v El Hajje
...r 13.02; Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA), r 46.04; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q), r 149; Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 8(1); Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r 227(1); Supreme Court Rules (NT), O 13 r 2; Supreme Court Rules 1937 (ACT), O 23 r 4. See also Federal Court R......